Emma Watson - Vanity Fair magazine - March, 2017

Her talking about being a feminist kind of negates her actually being a feminist. If you are a feminist just be a feminist, you don't have to keep hitting everybody over the head with it.

Which leads me to believe the whole feminist thing with her is a defense mechanism for her sexuality. It's not a crime to be young and sexy.

I don't know, maybe this is twisted logic.

 

I think tits is fine if it's preceded by "Here- look at my..." But, when it comes after "SHOW! YOUR!" that's then the feminists get upset.

 

oh look at this idiot lol

 

I wonder where common sense prevails...
Emma is a educated woman who happens to be very attractive, her choices are just that "her choices " and that is exactly what feminism is.
The choice to do what she wants without the input or being exploited by an outside source.
She takes a lot of flack from the liberal leftists (who don't have a clue what feminism actually means)'and the sexist men who still fantasize about her playing with their wand while dressed as Harry Potter.
Good on her I say.. Fuck the haters and the misogynists too.

 

Hope she shows more to spite those critics.

 

The reason she is being called a hypocrite is because of a comment she made in 2013 about Beyonce.
2013 saw Beyoncé release her self-titled LP, which included a spoken word interpolation from the novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, taken from her TED speech We Should All Be Feminists.

""As I was watching [the videos] I felt very conflicted, I felt her message felt very conflicted in the sense that on the one hand she is putting herself in a category of a feminist, but then the camera, it felt very male, such a male voyeuristic experience of her,"

 

I can see where she would be conflicted by Beyoncé...
Beyoncé comes across has being very Militant in her views, almost man hating yet she then portrays herself half naked on a bed waiting for a man to validate her...
Now we all know what Beyoncé main goal is, and that is to be Queen B (top of the tree) and she will use anything controversial to become that.. Feminisim Blaxploitation Black Power Partial nudity whatever it takes.

 

I don't think she made things better when she said this:

"“Feminism is about giving women choice. Feminism is not a stick with which to beat other women with. It’s about freedom, it’s about liberation, it’s about equality. I really don’t know what my tits have to do with it. It’s very confusing.”

As many commented "But it's OK for you to beat Beyonce with a stick?"

EDIT: and just to add, maybe I'm wrong but isn't part of the feminist movement being against sexual objectification of women (page 3 etc)

 

That's the whole point..

Lefty liberalism would lead many to think that, The Feminazi are all over that way of thinking and have somewhat hijacked feminism for their own man hating agenda.
In any ideology you get extreme views that are completely against anything remotely socially acceptable.
The true definition of feminism is that a woman is free to choose her own destiny and or direction in the decision she makes without outside influence or coercion.
It's that simple. It's freedom It's to be emancipated from social conformity.
I get where she is coming from.

 

Says who? Enemies of a cause do not get to define its terms and motives.

 

You're taking 2 commentaries that were said with 4 years of difference...
IMO, people can't call her hypocrite just for that, that's lack of knowlege, inexperience. In 2013 she wasn't an activist, she was just another college student with a very limited point of view.
Is like a guy who has 2 weeks at a gym and pretend to be a trainer.

That's one of the reasons why she took a year-off, to learn about it, to read, travel and work for UNWomen... to grow and to stop being a child who gets disturbed by a word as tit

 

And there I was thinking she took a year off to take acting lessons

[/sarcasm off]

 

This was an insightful comment, Big Bamboo. I created an account just to respond, because I think you are on the cusp of understanding something important, and I wanted to help, if I can.

If you are right that feminism is freedom to choose without influence, than that could be either internal or external influence. If we take each one separately, it is interesting that western society has evolved to the point that women have all the same guaranteed rights as men (so little to no coercion), and thus largely its the 'social conformity' aspect that still remains. That is 'internal' influence. No one is forcing women to choose professions that lesser paid (and thus wage gap), and no one is forcing women to post semi-nude (on instagram, or magazines). I am not saying this to be confrontation. I am trying to lead to something interesting. That perhaps when 3rd wave feminism realizes it has been largely successful, a new 4th wave will occur focused on healing the internal struggle. Growing up girls are bullied... by other "girls", in large part. Low-self esteem by bully and victims. Girls are influenced by the media to feel pressure to conform to beauty standards. And so forth. All of it is an 'internal' influence.

And thus perhaps feminism does not exist, in that the internal struggle is really just... self-esteem. That is all it is. We don't need another word for it, in the "Western" world anyway.

To bring this back to Emma Watson, there is LITERALLY no external influence in her life. She is a multi-millionaire, celebrity, beauty, walking red carpets, doing anything she wishes. Her only struggle is internal. Low self-esteem.

And then she and others externalize it to others.

 

Change the word "woman" to "person" and "she" to they" and you have the definition of humanism. Feminism is not necessary if that is its definition. I love Emma's work. I think she is a fine person but the feminism she talks about is 1st wave feminism. She talks about equal pay and equal right. Women in Western society have already achieved that. If that is her message then she is preaching to the choir. You know where they don't have feminism? Africa, the Middle East, most of the Third World. But she isn't going there to spread the message of female empowerment. Instead she is lecturing the very nations and societies that have done the most for women's progress. She's a humanist. Her problem is that the majority of feminist today are 3rd wave feminists and that is an entirely different animal than what she is espousing.

 

http://forum.phun.org/index.php?thr...hild-event-in-malawi-africa-10-10-16.1696764/

Anyway, she's not working alone, she's an ambassador for UNWomen, wich was created in 2010, it's just starting. And those lecturings have a purpose, they need the support of those nations, is not like they can go and change the traditions of a country just because they want to.

 

They have empirically not. And for every improvement de jure there are a dozen remaining problems de facto.

And the humanism argument meets the same problem as the "all lives matter" argument - the point is fundamentally that because of inequality a specially-focused movement is necessary to achieve equality.

Anyway, unless there are new pics, I hope the mods kill this thread. This isn't the forum (literally) for this discussion.

 

"the humanism argument meets the same problem as the "all lives matter" argument -"?
umm lol ok. if you meant that they are both valid.

The problem being every group wants to play the victim...

"all lives matter"
male or female it don't matter
black or white it don't matter.

every person is not equal.
some people are smarter than others.
some work harder than others.
some are prettier than others.
there is no justice in social justice
social justice is just mob rule of the ugly, stupid, and lazy trying to get something for free.

 

You're confusing personal inequities with institutional and structural inequities. Some people are going to fail no matter what advantages they have, but that does not mean there is not a responsibility to level the playing field so that those with the abilities and drive to succeed have the opportunities to do so. *That's* what social justice is about - correcting and compensating for institutional and structural issues in society, not creating some kind of Harrison Bergeron-esque dystopia. Anything else is just a straw man. And if those societal issues didn't exist, then it wouldn't matter what gender or race someone is; however, those issues do exist, hence the need for feminism, BLM, etc. In light of that, "all lives matter" is just another way of saying "we're okay with the completely unequal and fundamentally systemically oppressive status quo." Which is precisely why we need people like Emma to stand up the way she has.

/rant.

 

"we're okay with the completely unequal and fundamentally systemically oppressive status quo."

actually i'm ok with the completely equal and fundamentally systemically UN-oppressive status quo.
B.L.M. is all about racism.
every example that blm uses to justify there actions is all predicted on lies and misinformation
Hands up don't shoot-- never happened!!! autopsy + witnesses proved that!!
if he actually had done that he would still be alive to rob from that store again.
blacks make up 15% of the population
responsible for 55% of crime
and yet there were more whites shot by police than blacks
all the death and crime is about the poor!!! color has no factor in this.
you put that many poor in one area no matter what color they are crime and drugs will thrive.


trayvon m.---- self defense!

you know i was about to keep ranting but just stopped to realize i got sucked into
the off topic bs that i hate to see on here.

rule
#1- look at posted pictures
#2-thank op for said pictures
#3-STFU

 

she said she has a clean pussy